Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On the other hand the fact that we don't actually provide an
> exhaustive set of data for that purpose and a) nobody's complained and
> b) it's for basically the same reason that you're suggesting this
> change, ie, that it isn't convenient and isn't impo
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Currently, if you do DROP something RESTRICT where there are multiple
> levels of dependencies on the "something", you get reports that might
> look about like this:
>
> NOTICE: x depends on something
...
> So what I'd like to do about it is just use the
Tom Lane wrote:
> So what I'd like to do about it is just use the CASCADE style all the
> time. Thoughts?
It is loss of functionality, but I very much doubt anyone is depending
on it -- it's way too elaborate. +1 on doing the simpler report if it's
too expensive to build the full report.
> BTW
Currently, if you do DROP something RESTRICT where there are multiple
levels of dependencies on the "something", you get reports that might
look about like this:
NOTICE: x depends on something
NOTICE: y depends on x
NOTICE: z depends on y
that is, you can trace the chain of reasoning for each
